w
w
em
tr
.X
w
ap
eP
om
.c
s
er
y Context/ clarification
y Sources
y Credibility
y Deconstruction
y Assumptions
y Perspective
y Conclusion
y Further reading
y Bibliography
y Intelligent design: everything on earth was created by God as it is now no evolution
y Scientists argue that evolution refutes the intelligent design theory
y Intelligent design theorists aim for a scientifically debate instead of religion versus science
y Refute: can scientists dismiss intelligent design as a scientific theory?
Marilyn Adamson
y Former atheist
y Used as conversion example
Everystudent.com
y Promotes belief in God
y Life advice, religious
y Anyone free to post on the site
y Marilyn’s article = feature God exists
Assumes the designer is God (perspective)
‘The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.’
‘Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing... water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.’
‘Water has a unique surface tension’
‘Characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life’ – (example of complexity)
Assumes that this ‘unique’ properties of water points to the existence of a designer.
(counter) Plants have evolved to harness the properties of water, water was not specifically designed for the use of plants. God exists
Assumes something this astounding and complex can only have come about through design.
The complexity of the eye points to a deliberate Designer who... created our universe
‘[The eye] can distinguish among seven million colors.’
Intelligent design is the correct solution
‘[The eye] has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages –
simultaneously.’
Main argument for intelligent design ‐
complexity
New scientist y Scientific journal
y Highly respected
James Randerson
y Editor of environmentguardian.co.uk
y Formerly guardian.co.uk's science correspondent. Bob Holmes y Consultant for new scientist
William Dembski, ‘a mathematician, philosopher and leading intelligent design proponent.’
‘The odds against getting complex structures from chance mutations are insurmountable’
‘Studies were carried out to find the probability of ‘one protein changing by chance to fit perfectly with another’
‘the odds were so long as to rule out an explanation based on chance events’
Scientific evidence supporting claim of previous source that things on earth are too complex to have come about by chance.
Different mutation can have the same outcome
‘different protein sequences can be functional’
‘It is not uncommon for proteins in different species to vary by 80 to 90 per cent, yet still perform the same function.’
‘The “improbability”
argument... misrepresents natural selection.’
Dembski’s arguments against evolution are flawed because he does not properly understand the theory.
Dembski argues that the odds against getting complex structures from chance mutations are insurmountable
Jawless fish accomplish blood clotting with just six proteins instead of the full 10.
‘[evolution] is based on small accumulated changes that take place without a final goal.’ not a complex structure coming into existence in in one mutation
‘a set of simultaneous mutations that form a complex protein structure is so unlikely as to be unfeasible’
Allaboutcreation.org y Sub‐section of allaboutgod.com
y Write websites y ‘reach out to sceptics, seekers [and] believers... with powerful evidence for God and... Jesus.’
y Content on first few pages of the world’s most popular search engines
y Religious perspective (Christian)
y Non‐profitable organisation
The flagellum is a product of intelligent design
‘[The flagellum has] a microscopic outboard motor.’
‘[the bacterial flagellum] consists of about 40 individual parts including a... rotor, drive shaft... And propeller. Associating something fully when it is very different
‘Motors are the product of intelligent design.’
‘If you were to find [the outboard motor parts] in any vehicle, machine... Or model, you would recognise them as the product of an intelligent source.’
Information demonstrating how complex the flagellum’s motor is, helping illustrate how impossible it would be for this system to evolve by chance.
Extreme complexity does not disprove natural selection.
Evidence of existing proteins being used for a different purpose.
Example of complexity: ‘bacterial flagellum with 40 proteins’
New theory: ‘natural selection works by adapting pre‐existing systems for new roles.’
‘A subset of flagella proteins... form a mechanism... which pathogenic bacteria use to inject toxins into their host’s cells.’
natural selection can explain most complex systems
‘If you remove any one part [of the flagellum], the entire system will fail to function’
‘The E.coli bacterial flagellum... Could not have evolved gradually over time’
‘There is absolutely no naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the bacterial flagellum.’
‘If you remove any one part [of the flagellum], the entire system will fail to function’
‘An “irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function.’
‘The bacterial flagellum is an “irreducibly complex” system’
‘“Irreducible complexity” is an illusion’
Illusion – says it is not a steadfast argument intelligent design supporters can rely on to prove the theory.
The “irreducibly complex” flagellum has 40 proteins’
The flagellum is not irreducibly complex
‘The stomach bacterium Helicobacter pylori, has a flagellum with just 33 proteins –
“irreducibly” reduced.
Implies in further paragraphs that while science advances, the intelligent design theory does not change, inferring that while they will eventually be able to explain all the stages of natural selection, intelligent design theory does not, ironically, evolve.
Intelligent design cannot be completely disproved, but parts of its argument can be. Intelligent design is a matter of faith, not of science. Science explores new theories.
y Intelligent design theory relies heavily on complexity
y Evolution can explain what was previously “proof” of intelligent design
y Main arguments of intelligent design countered
y Perspective: people still pursue intelligent design because of their belief in God
y Therefore intelligent design is a matter of religion, and can be refuted by scientists
y ‘Why everything you know about evolution is wrong”
Oliver Burkeman
Writing for the Guardian [online]
Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolutio
n‐darwin‐natural‐selection‐genes‐wrong
[written 19th March 2010, read in the paper same day]
y Nylon‐eating bacteria (pro‐evolution)
Ker Than
Writing for LiveScience [online]
Available at: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050923_ID_scie
nce.html
[written 23 September 2005, accessed March 2010]
y SOURCE 1
Marilyn Adamson
Writing for everystudent.com [online]
Available at: http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
[Accessed April 2010]
y SOURCE 2
James Randerson, editor of environmentguardian.co.uk
Bob Holmes, consultant for new scientist
Writing for New Scientist [online]
Available at: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725073.800‐
creationism‐special‐a‐sceptics‐guide‐to‐intelligent‐
design.html?full=true [accessed April 2010]
y SOURCE 3
No specified writer
Available at: http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof‐of‐god.htm
[Accessed April 2010]